So, I am working in a different building today.  Twice a week, I am supporting the college recruiting team.  Recruiting with my group has slowed down a bit, so I am taking on a project.  Campus hires are up for the entertainment division.  So, they asked for $$$ from my group to pay for a contractor to assist...or a resource.  So, since I haven't been as busy, I am the resource.

 

Anyway...when I sit in this building (Building 19 for those of you familiar with the MS campus), I sit in an office across the walkway from cubes.  What's the problem with this, you ask?  Well...in my other office, with Games, I am across the walkway from more offices.  So, people don't really know where to look.  They just look forward.  Or, I have at least a 50% chance they will look into the other offices.

 

Here...they don't want to look in the cubes (because they are pretty wide open) so, they look into the offices.  Every time someone walks by, they look right at me.  Of course, each time, this distracts me and I look up from what I am working on.  This tends to slow me down as I distract easily.  I could close the door, but, I don't always like doing that because I feel people wonder what I am doing.  Perhaps I am not really doing my work, but sitting at my computer blogging.  I don't know why they would think these things.

 

Anyway...it's annoying.  I wish it would stop.  But, it probably won't. 

 

Confoundit.

I have a great idea for the Democrats.

 

So, there are currently 2 major thoughts out there regarding the war in Iraq.  #1) More troops...or #2) Get out. 

 

My man, John McCain, brings up some very good point for sending more in.  Many people (including Bacchus in my comments section) have good points on not adding more troops.  But, nobody, really, has come up with a good solution.  Most high profile Dems say, "Don't send in more troops...ummmm...that's all we got."  They keep talking about a time line, which could be good or bad.  Personally...I think the Iraqis need some kind of timeline because they just ain't doing their part of the job.  But, that's not my idea.

 

Here is my idea.  Dems that want the troops to come home now have a weapon in their arsenal.  That weapon is...Congressional control of the budget. 

First of all...I am not advocating this idea.  Just informing people that they have the power.

This isn't a new idea.  All Congress has to do is say, "We're not paying for this war any more."  That's it.  Once that is done, it raises a new question:  "Who is less patriotic?"

 

Now, before the liberals jump down my throat...hear me out. 

 

Bush and Rove have been spewing the Patriot line since the war started.  (Also...I love the term Chicken Hawk)  "You have to support the troops.  You have to support the troops.  If you're not with us, you're against us."  The President has Constitutional Authority to send troops wherever he darn well pleases.  Congress has Constitutional authority to approve or deny the budget.  So, here is my question in full:

 

Who is less patriotic?  A Congress who cuts funding for our troops in harms way?  Or a President who insists on keeping them there dispite not having the money to give them what they need?

 

Seriously...there it is.  If the Dems want to make a bold move, that's what they need to do.  No more of this whining about "Bush's war."  No more of this complaining about how long we've been there.  If you want us out, there is your door.  Take it.  Cut the funding.  I have no clue who voters would side with, at that point.  Heck...I'm not even sure who I would side with.  It would probably depend on what Bush does after they cut funding.  They could cut funding and Bush could bring the troops home.  Wouldn't that be swell? 

So...week before last, I was in San Franciso for the Game Developers conference.  The conference was swell...it usually is.  Wanna know what sucked?  My wallet was stolen and my Xbox games are missing.  My wallet, I know when that disappeared.  A drunk dip-(wait...I can't cuss on this site)poopie walked off with my jacket by mistake.  Jacket came back, but the wallet wasn't in it.

 

Games, I'm not so sure about.  One second they were with the Xbox, the next second, they were not.  I tend to bring my own private stash.  Not gonna do that, again. 

 

I need a topic to blog about.  The world is boring me lately.  And, I'm grouchy cause I don't have any games.  My wallet, I can replace.  Cards, I can cancel.  But, I am talking almost $500 worth of video game goodness.  Kameo, Project Gothem Racing, Gears of War, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, Dead or Alive 4, MLB 2k7.  Why, God?  WHHHHHYYYYYYYYYY?

With the rise of YouTube and MySpace and all the other video sites, this is going to be a great cycle.  Take this "ad" for instance:

 

Passed on to me by Rian.  Found here.

 

---

 

How to argue effectively
By Stuart J. Williams, Attorney at Law

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

Drink liquor.

Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

Make things up.

Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."

Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.

Memorize this list:

Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
Ipso facto
Ergo
So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Ergo, ipso facto, case closed. Q.E.D."

Only a fool would challenge that statement.

Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.

Don't forget the classic: YOU'RE SO LINEAR.

Here's how to use your comebacks:

You say:	As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says:	Lincoln died in 1865.
You say:	You're begging the question.

You say:	Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says:	Liberia is in Africa.
You say:	You're being defensive.

You say:	Since the discovery of the incandescent light bulb...
Your opponent says:	The light bulb is an invention.
You say:	Well DUH!

Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

Carpooling into work today, my new carpool buddy, Jon (no more vanpool since I am much closer to work), and I were discussing transportation in the Puget Sound area and how much it sucks.  Jon made the comment, "I don't get why Portland and even Denver can be so far ahead of Seattle in their transportation structures. 

 

Well...I know.  This is why. 

 

Apparently, a group of State lawmakers (including my new Senator since I've moved to Seattle...what did I do?) have decided that it is their duty, as elected State officials, to push for impeachment of the President of the United States...from the Washington State Legislature. 

 

Yesterday, Committee hearing were held, to discuss a proposal calling for "Investigations" into President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  State lawmakers spoke, disgrunted citizens spoke, parents of troops...oh, and the Mayor of Salt Lake City.  ???  Huh-Wha?  The Repulicans boycotted these hearings.  And, the State Majority leader as well as US Senator Patty Murray (Democrat) and US Representative Jay Insee (Democrat) both said these hearings were a pointless waste of time that would only make people angry.  Guess what...they're right.

 

The Impeachment resolution is being sponsored by a Senator names Eric Oemig representing Kirkland and most of the Eastside.  Check out his website.  It's very warm and fuzzy.  And doesn't mention anything about being a radical activist.  http://www.voteeric.com/

 

Another interesting thing about Senator Oemig...he's the Vice Chair of the Government Operations and Elections Commitee.  I don't know if everyone remembers...but there was this international fiasco of an election in Washington State about 2+ years ago.  As far as I know, those problems haven't been fixed, yet.  Probably has something to do with our State Committee responsible for finding a solution being busy discussing impeachment.   

 

Anyway...just thought it would be nice if, maybe, the Washington State legislature would spend it's time focusing on Washington State issues.  I'll call Jim McDermott if I want someone to start impeachment hearings.  Of couse, I'm sure he's already on it.